The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714

The Norton Library History of England

by Christopher Hill

There is an immense range of books about the English Civil War, but one historian stands head and shoulders above all others for the quality of his work on the subject. In 1961 Christopher Hill first published what has come to be acknowledged as the best concise history of the period, Century of Revolution . Stimulating, vivid and provocative, his graphic depiction of the turbulent era examines ordinary English men and women as well as kings and queens.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Politics, English Civil War, European History, 17th Century

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1961

About the author

John Edward Christopher Hill was the pre-eminent historian of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English history, and one of the most distinguished historians of recent times. Fellow historian E.P. Thompson once referred to him as the dean and paragon of English historians.

He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford. During World War II, he served in the Russian department of the British Foreign Office, returning to teach at Oxford after the war.

From 1958-1965 he was University Lecturer in 16th- and 17th-century history, and from 1965-1978 he was Master of Balliol College. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the British Academy. He received numerous honorary degrees over the course of his career, including the Hon. Dr. Sorbonne Nouvelle in 1979.

Hill was an active Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from approximately 1934-1957, falling out with the Party after the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprisings of 1956.

In their obituary, The Guardian wrote of Hill:

"Christopher Hill…was the commanding interpreter of 17th-century England, and of much else besides.…it was as the defining Marxist historian of the century of revolution, the title of one of the most widely studied of his many books, that he became known to generations of students around the world. For all these, too, he will always be the master." [http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/...]

Reviews

[tara bomp · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Recorded history is like a photograph of an iceberg: it deals only with what is visible above the surface. Yet below the surface is the vast mass of the population, surviving sometimes in records when they are born, married, accused of crime, or buried, but otherwise leaving no trace. Through all the far reaching changes of this century which affected the upper classes, the labour of peasants, craftsmen, mariners went on relatively unchanged."

Fascinating book, and his Marxist influence is pretty clear - he talks of things in terms of class and the influence of the mode of production (although not using that term explicitly). It's not a narrative history - he divides it up into 4 periods, each of which is given a few pages of narrative describing the events and then is analysed in terms of politics, economics and religion and ideas. If you're looking for a good history in terms of the events that happened then don't read this. If you're interested in analysis of underlying causes and the system at work then this is a great book.

One of the themes that comes up so far is what "liberty" meant even at this early stage - as per usual, it means freedom for the big property owners and the gentry and squires who felt they had a god-given right to rule their villages and parishes in whatever way they wanted in their role as Justices of the Peace. Although Hill is scathing about Charles' government, he points out that often the problem of the Commons was with things like Charles using his prerogatives to stop enclosures (although of course he supported them when they helped him or his favourite courtiers).

He also mentions stuff like the government (not the Commons) trying to fix wages for workers and also restricting apprenticeships to try and prevent people moving around. He mentions an overproduction crisis where after the failure of an attempt to promote British cloth production the government made it illegal for clothiers to sack weavers even in massive overproduction. It gives a very clear picture of the conflicting economic interests that partially drove the Civil War. The monarch's government was concerned mainly with keeping the hierarchy stable and although money was a constant problem, economic growth in itself contributed very little to their cashflow so they didn't care about it so much as taxes were easily evaded and income mainly came through things like monopoly and peerage sales. The Commons was concerned with what was basically the very beginnings of industrial capital in Britain - the ending of monopolies, the free movement of people, free trade, all to secure the unfettered growth of capital. Hill talks about how there was initially a lot of reluctance to contest the King's prerogatives and resistance from the Commons was mainly in terms of restating old or supposed old rights and privileges. But when the situation became past compromise for the new powerful classes of merchants, small industry and land owners mostly outside the peerage, they pushed things far enough to create a war and a very different political system.

His stuff about the government of the Civil War period is interesting, and would make a good comparison with the 18th Brumaire by Marx. The civil war started with a large majority for the parliamentarians in both the Lords and the Commons yet some swapped sides because they were terrified of the thought of the common people having more control over the gentry. Parliament never suffered any significant losses but the creation of the New Model Army with command to officers by merit was necessary to press the advantage, creating a space for radical discussion among people of lower social rank and allowing their social advance, scaring many of the more conservative members of parliament. This led to a split in parliament where the more conservative factions made overtures to Charles I, leading to his execution by the more radical side and the expulsion of many of the conservative members by the army. This is around the point of the Putney debates, where the Levellers put forward their more radical vision that scared the large propertied members of the radical faction, causing a clampdown on the radicals of the lower orders. Hill quotes someone from the anti-Leveller side complaining that the call for the extension of liberty inevitably would mean a call for the extension of property, meaning the expropriation of existing property. They said "Liberty cannot be provided for in a general sense if property be preserved", but meant it from the standpoint of defending property. It's an interesting premonition of later revolutions.

From then on the army which now basically ruled the country was caught in an impossible position - the majority of the propertied classes would never support the continued existence and rule of the army, which was massively expensive and an insult to the gentry's pre-eminence, and therefore a friendly parliament could never be summoned or given control. Yet the generals had destroyed the hope of any massive support from the lower classes and the radicals by clamping down on their leadership and through their own fear of their property being expropriated if they gave them enough leeway. The generals therefore had no base to call on in defence of the army, which was increasingly financially unsustainable and yet couldn't be disbanded without destroying their powerbase. Multiple parliaments under particular rules and franchises intended to give the generals sustainable rule were summoned and failed as they were either too radical or too conservative for their liking. The army rule introduced more centralisation and was efficient in many ways but its encroachment of the prerogatives of the gentry in the counties was a major source of opposition to it. After Cromwell's death, the army was totally unable to retain control and conservatives in union with former radicals and parts of the army took control and called for the return of Charles II, to restore the order of sacrosanct property and gentry rule under a more powerful parliament.

Another interesting thing is his mention of increased taxes during the republic requiring people to sell up their tied down assets - things like plate - in order to pay them, creating a greater flow of capital which accelerated development and the accumulation of wealth. The history of the entire period is one of capital becoming more and more dominant, a trend reflected in politics - Whigs and Tories swap places, with Whigs going from outsiders (although rich outsiders) to the only political party worth anything, with their proto-capitalist policies being accepted wisdom. The Tories disappear into irrelevance as they lose power, wealth and their absolute support for the monarchy means less and less. Significant patronage no longer flowed from the king, but instead from positions determined by parliament. The monarch lost the vast majority of his lands and from this point on was reliant on parliamentary income. It's interesting how after the Civil War there were multiple opportunities for a further revolution which would have benefited one or the other parties but the moderate wings of both were absolutely against it because of the fear of stirring up the common people, which might lead to further attacks on their property. Part of the convergence between the two was their interests converged so much, both in property and in the importance of a stable system of finance to their own investments. The economic change was truly revolutionary.

It's important to note some of the stuff he leaves out in the book. Part of it is understandable on a length basis, but still. I've said above that it's not a narrative history - he leaves out a lot of details of events in favour of details of broad trends. He also namedrops a lot of major figures in art and writing without describing them, although I was fine without knowing who they were. It's very much a history of England - Scotland and Ireland appear only a few times when they directly affect England. This means no discussion of what led to the Act of Union (past basic mention of "was good for trade and development) and no discussion about the repression of Ireland or the system of property that profited English upper class there (apart from simply saying "it existed and it happened"). Which is understandable length wise but kind of frustrating. It also only very rarely mentions the colonies and then only to what extent it profits English ruling class. The slave trade only comes up in terms of how the monopoly was seized from the Dutch and the profits it made for ports. It seems kind of inadequate sometimes. Finally, women are given short shrift here. It's understandable that when talking specifically about an entirely male government women are talked about less. But it's frustrating that women are mentioned only very rarely and in tiny sentences, like saying "women had more freedom in the Civil War period because men were away as soldiers" and not expanding, mentioning women having to work at home alone with men out at wage work but not expanding. It's a little disappointing there's not more. I'd also say that personally I found the sections where he talked about the arts a little weak, although that might be because I know very little about them.

Nevertheless, with the caveats above in mind, a fascinating and interesting book. I don't know how it compares to other histories but personally I found its choice of subjects and the style of analysis exactly what I wanted to read and perfect for comparing and contrasting with modern history and seeing similarities as well as better understanding how class societies change and develop.

The men of property won freedom - freedom from arbitary taxation and arbitrary arrest, freedom from religious persecution, freedom to control the destinies of their country through their elected representatives, freedom to buy and sell. They also won freedom to evict copyholders and cottagers, to tyrannise over their villages, to hire unprotected labour in the open market... The smaller men failed in all spheres to get their freedom recognised, failed to win either the vote or economic security.

Freedom is not something abstract. It is the right of certain people to do certain things... Only very slowly and very late have men come to understand that unless freedom is universal it is only extended privilege. "If the common people have no more freedom in England," Winstanley asked, "but only to live among their elder brothers and work for them for hire, what freedom have they in England more than we have in Turkey or France?"...

In commending the actions of the men of the seventeenth century, as we should, in noting the very real constitutional, economic and intellectual advances, let us also remember how much of the lives of how many men and women is utterly unknown to us.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Through all the far reaching changes of this century which affected the upper classes, the labour of peasants, craftsmen, mariners went on relatively unchanged.

I decided it may be time for me to write a novel. Fitting Dr. Johnson's definition of a blockhead, the idea has percolated for a while. This volume was chewed as research and what fantastic erudition is on display in Hill's work. Hill masterfully approaches economics, religion, the arts and politics are examined as England lurched towards the convulsions of revolution and restoration.

[Rob M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Start to finish brilliant macro-history of the century describing the economic, political, and intellectual changes that brought England out of the late Middle Ages into the Early Modern period. In the best tradition of other British marxist historians like Hobsbawm, Thompson, etc.

Despite the densely packed, information rich text, the prose was pleasant and flowing. I actively enjoyed reading this book and came away feeling like I'd learned a lot, even a bit euphoric.

[Magda · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the beggining i thought that this is one more history book that musters all the events and bores yo with extensive analysis. But it isn't. It's far more than that. It has political, social and economic history and above all a concrete idea about british history, meaning it has a critical ability to melt together all the info it provides. Made british history of that period quite a journey.

[David C Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

A primer on and an introduction to England’s revolutionary century, a revolution on politics as well as the economy and society. Particularly interesting, to me anyway, on the conservative reaction after the end of the Protectorate: how class power was asserted by the gentry over both the King and the lower orders, who found their condition worsening as modernization took off and their political strength curtailed. I will say also that a lot of the discussion of religious changes is impenetrable if you aren’t grounded in the subject already.

[thekar · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main problem of this book is that it was written for English readers for whom the events of the 17th century are well known. The book briefly narrates the events in the beginning of each chapter, but you will need an open tab of wiki or an encyclopedia to check the biography of each personality. A lot more played a role in the English Revolution apart from the main protagonists like Cromwell or the Stuarts.

If you skip the above difficulty, the book is one of the finest examples of historic materialism methodology in a subject that is mostly dominated by religious, national and politically liberal themes. For Christopher Hill the English Civil War, the Commonwealth, the Restoration and the subsequent final fall of the Stuarts , were a series of events that , in fact, were a bourgeois revolution, the English Revolution. During these years, the rule of an absolute monarch was effectively destroyed, along with all feudal elements (laws, institutions, economy) that supported the King, and in its place a new modern capitalist state was formed under the rule of the Parliament of "free", protestant, property-holding English and Scots.

In order to do so, the bourgeois required the massive support of the lower classes of workers, farmers and serfs that formed the New Model Army that smashed all enemies of the new England. However, when the lower classes demanded voting equality (Levellers), income equality (Diggers) and religious freedom (Quakers etc), they were divided and, in time, defeated by the new capitalist regime; first suppressed by Cromwell and, then, decisively eliminated politically by James II and William III. The "non-free" no-property majority were not to have a voice again in British politics until the rise of socialism in the 19th century.




Overall, if you think that history is a rational set of events that are there for a rational explanation this is a book for you.

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

committed left perspective on the stuart age, a contrast with barry coward.

[Ricardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a really great book about one the most consequential periods in English history; however, it's important to have good historic fundamentals to take away the best of it.

[Kevin Fitzpatrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Offering the reader a complete and documented overview of at least the official events of more than a century of eventful British history, "The Century of Revolution: 1603-1714" is a concise yet entertaining and complete record of the seventeenth century, that most tumultuous of times. Brief enough to be approachable yet wide-ranging enough to satisfy more demanding readers, this book appeals to both the layman (of which I account myself) and the specialist, who will welcome the plethora of details from the historical documents cited. While reading this book, one really finds oneself appreciating the very significant changes that the UK experience during this violent period; one finds oneself allying oneself with the "heroes" of the age, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Dissenters, as they seek to open up English society to democracy. However, as Mr. Hill acknowledges at the end of this tome, the masses of the population hardly appear in the historical record let alone set the agenda of their time. Truly our day, with its at least paying lip service to the rights of all men (and women), offers a better effect, in both the historical record and in the lives of all citizens, for the well being of the common man. So, like a shadow lurking in the background of an otherwise bucolic painting, the presence of these men haunts the pages of this record, calling for a truer history and a more just society than that of 17th century England. However, having said that, this is still a grand book: read!

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

nice general overview of the before and after of the revolutionary/civil war period. provides the bigger picture info that i felt i didn't have when i read hill's The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution

[maoppw · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hard to recommend this book as someone wanting to learn more about the period. The writing style is terse and matter-of-fact. It reads as if you have already studied the English civil war, and the times before it, and the times after it. More of an academic study; argumentative analysis that assumes you know the key events.

[Sylvie Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very very good reference book for essays on transformations in the century.

[Simon Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oddly, one of Hill’s least satisfying books.

[Doris Raines · Rating 4 out of 5]

I LIKE THIS BOOK.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and extremely clear. However, my copy fell apart before I was done reading.

[lukas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Výborná kniha, veľmi hutná, a nekompromisná ale dobrá, odporúčam len odvážnym

[MEDEVi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I´m going to talk about this book. This book is so terrific.

[Dave Gaughran · Rating 4 out of 5]

A birds eye view of English society before, during and after the English civil war. Hill shows that England went through a fundamental change during the Civil War. There is much debate among historians whether the English Civil War can be characterised as a revolution or not. After all the English Civil war is considered allot less violent than the latter French Revolution (though it was pretty violent in Ireland) and there wasn’t a modern bourgeoisie to carry through the revolution, as there was in France. Hill was a Marxist, and it is said that the Marxist theory of the transfer from feudalism to capitalism by a revolution led by the bourgeoisie has been proved wrong, because after all the French revolution is one of the few revolutions where this happened, the French revolution is the exception rather than the rule. The English revolution, if that is what it was, was led by the gentry not the bourgeoisie.

However this view of Marxism is a caricature of the theory, a vast oversimplification of the theory. Indeed Hill doesn’t suggest at all in the book that the bourgeoisie led the revolution and yet he was a Marxist. What he does do is show that the result of the revolution is the ascendency of the bourgeoisie, what he does show, convincingly, is that the activities of the bourgeoisie were restricted by the state before the revolution and unrestricted after the revolution. Before the revolution, those who became wealthy by means other than through state monopolies, inheritance or land, were viewed with suspicion by the ruling class of the time; the aristocracy and it was felt by them that their wealth and their power that goes with it should be restricted. The civil war lifted these restrictions, which meant that the gentry had the freedom to enclose land, drain fens, cut down forests; which meant that the merchants had the freedom to hire the people thrown off the enclosed land, thrown out of the forests etc, the birth of the working class. Cities that had guilds declined and those that didn’t, Birmingham for instance, boomed. Society began the huge transformation that would become the industrial revolution. That is why it was more than just a civil war.

The Marxist theory of society is that the advance of the forces of production, agricultural techniques and equipment, shipping, production methods, dyeing etc; would put pressure on the current relations of production, aristocracy, courtiers, monopolists, financiers, merchants, gentry, yeomanry, artisans and that the interests attached to these classes would conflict with each other, they would clash, and this would lead to the rise of political formations and alliances backing respective interests, and that this clash of interests could result in an explosion, the explosion may take the form of the English Civil war, the American Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc, or in the case of the transfer from feudalism to capitalism the change may be managed such as in Bismarck’s Germany, the Meiji restoration in Japan, the Italian Risorgimento or Stalin’s Russia.

[James Euclid · Rating 4 out of 5]

I probably should have started with this book because Christopher Hill is laying something like foundations here. But here, too, he limits himself to what is necessary, because in his fascinating social analyses he is never out to shine, but to summarise everything as briefly as possible.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I happened upon this book while searching for ever more Routledge Classics titles to indulge in. After I had already ordered this book, I read a little about Christopher Hill, beginning with the description "Marxist Historian" and realized that this probably wasn't going to be what I expected.

The book itself is written well, but I think it requires some decent prior knowledge of the English Civil War to fully appreciate. I would not have put myself in that category. (Being from the US, when we talk about Revolutions and Civil War, we tend to focus on the local ones rather than broadening out to even England. It's rare that England's even acknowledged as having history that could be instructive for our own.)

Nevertheless, I learned a good deal from this book. One of the major things I learned from self-study triggered by this book is that there's a great deal of debate about what actually caused the English Civil War. Being of a Marxist perspective, most of the book's discussion is economic or class based, but there's also a good amount about religion and ideas of the period. Hill divides about a 100 year period into 4 sections. Each section has a chapter that quickly describes the events, one chapter each for "Economics", "Politics and the Constitution" and "Religion and Ideas" and finally a conclusion. This gives the book the feel of a textbook.

Hill's writing is pretty good. I did find one particularly good nugget in here -

"When Bunyan's Mr Badman asked, 'Who would keep a cow of their own that can have a quart of milk for a penny?' we may deplore the attitude towards holy matrimony which he was advocating; but we note that he confirms Pepys's view of the cheapness of dairy produce."

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for cheap?

[John E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hill has written an excellent introduction to Stuart England. While his format is a little unorthodox, it works very well to keep over a hundred years of history in order. This transition century from rule by the nobility and king's favorites to rule by the expanded non-landowning rich is made very clear. This was the time of the rise of "Liberty" which he describes as limited to the rich for "unless freedom is universal it is only extended privledge." I sounds like the battle has continued since then.

[Caracalla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting account of Britain's most important century, the foundation of her politics, economic habits, etc. Massive change from James I to William III. Interesting thesis that all that was achieved was the propping of a new class based on wealth and property. The condition of the poor at the time sounds fairly horrifying. Puritans are made to look pretty good as well, which isn't very common these days but I'm inclined to favour certain of Hill's arguments.

[Philip Challinor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good concise overview of Britain's revolutionary seventeenth century, with detailed chapters on economics (which I ploughed through dutifully), politics and religion (which I found much more interesting) besides the bare narrative of events (with which I am not nearly familiar enough).

[Nick Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history is a little light on analysis, though considering the subject matter that can be expected. Worth a read for an introduction to the period's events, with plenty of suggestions for further study.

[Jane · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't have enough knowledge of the period to understand the glancing references to events and concepts - lots of detours to Wikipedia! But it is well written - a given. Hill was a graduate and Fellow of Balliol.

[Sean Chick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish I could rate it higher, for as a source of information and interpretation it is peerless. The trouble is Hill is a lousy writer.

[Julaine]

Source: Seattle Used Bookstore

[Christopher Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work